3.09 ring & pinion
11-16-2005, 08:36 PM
#391
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snipe, i would agree with your post except for the fact that on the street, the traction is much more limited. i've not driven an automatic before, so i don't know what kind of wheelspin you get off the line. if it's a fair amount with the 2.20, i don't think the 3.09 is gonna get near 2 carlengths. the fact that it's gonna be faster with drag slicks or perfect traction has been conceded. i would guess the 3.09 would also be faster off the line on the street with stock hps. i think everone agrees with this stuff.
i think the question is the value of this mod. $3,000 plus labor for a best case scenario of 2 car lengths on the drag strip, and probably less on the street? with no advantage at driving speeds above 37.
i think the question is the value of this mod. $3,000 plus labor for a best case scenario of 2 car lengths on the drag strip, and probably less on the street? with no advantage at driving speeds above 37.
11-16-2005, 09:26 PM
#392
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by jyoon
snipe, i would agree with your post except for the fact that on the street, the traction is much more limited. i've not driven an automatic before, so i don't know what kind of wheelspin you get off the line. if it's a fair amount with the 2.20, i don't think the 3.09 is gonna get near 2 carlengths. the fact that it's gonna be faster with drag slicks or perfect traction has been conceded. i would guess the 3.09 would also be faster off the line on the street with stock hps. i think everone agrees with this stuff.
i think the question is the value of this mod. $3,000 plus labor for a best case scenario of 2 car lengths on the drag strip, and probably less on the street? with no advantage at driving speeds above 37.
i think the question is the value of this mod. $3,000 plus labor for a best case scenario of 2 car lengths on the drag strip, and probably less on the street? with no advantage at driving speeds above 37.
#2. Supposedly the automatic trans set is easier & cheaper to produce than the manual. Rixter is being nice enough to disassemble a diff & temporarily donate the gearset so I can ship it to Canada & back to him at my expense. I also will pay for the vendor's time to scan the parts & come up with a price. If no one wants one when he's done that's fine. But people asked me & I'm willing to help. This is America,- freedom of choice. If you don't want it, don't buy it. I don't care what a certain person says. I live in the real world & I KNOW from EXPERIENCE with cars that I have owned what a gearset can do for fun driving & performance. Don't believe what I say. Go through this thread & ask the several Rennlisters who have this gearset how they like it. You have two choices. Believe what Kibort says through his calculations, or talk to people who ACTUALLY HAVE THE REAL ANSWERS. The ones who own the cars with these gears installed.
Do you think that Jamie Houseman Auto Sport made these gears because he was bored? He was asked to make them. Long before I came along. That's what he does for a living. He makes performance gearsets.
I would like to see everyone on this list who has the 3.09 set to voice their opinion. Come on guys, speak your piece.
Thanks, Hammer
11-16-2005, 10:47 PM
#393
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Great Northwest
Posts: 12,264
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Hammer,
It might be a bit late to get opinions in this thread since it turned into a debate, which isn't a bad thing, over the pros & cons and this and that of gearing.
IIWY I would start a new thread for the truly interested only and ask Scott M (has the 3.09) and a few others to chime in.
It might be a bit late to get opinions in this thread since it turned into a debate, which isn't a bad thing, over the pros & cons and this and that of gearing.
IIWY I would start a new thread for the truly interested only and ask Scott M (has the 3.09) and a few others to chime in.
11-16-2005, 10:56 PM
#394
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Jim_H
Hammer,
It might be a bit late to get opinions in this thread since it turned into a debate, which isn't a bad thing, over the pros & cons and this and that of gearing.
IIWY I would start a new thread for the truly interested only and ask Scott M (has the 3.09) and a few others to chime in.
It might be a bit late to get opinions in this thread since it turned into a debate, which isn't a bad thing, over the pros & cons and this and that of gearing.
IIWY I would start a new thread for the truly interested only and ask Scott M (has the 3.09) and a few others to chime in.
Hammer
11-17-2005, 12:06 AM
#395
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by mark kibort
torque through the gears at any vehicle speed is HP!! saves several math steps!
And that's where the 3.09 comes in is that it produces more force from any single operating condition. No every vehicle speed, but any gear&rpm point.
11-17-2005, 12:07 AM
#396
Rennlist Member
Do you have any idea how many people in this country make money on preceived gains. let me tell you, take the "calculations" that are quite simple and plug them or the raw ratio information into one of those calcualtors. you will see , im not doing anythin special here, but showing reality. Now, if i drove one, and then put it in mycar and shaved .2 seconds off my time, I would have to agree. however this has been proven by some very simple math. trust me folks, this is not that complicated. cant you see that there is a real precieved issue here with the gear shift all the way in what is normally 2nd gear and you floor it and it just RIPS, just like 1st gear did????????? THATS BECAUSE IT IS 1st gear!!!!!!!!! (as far as the ratio)
anyway, remember, HUGE companies like KN still stay that clean air filters give better gas mileage!! does this mean its right?? Ive never seen or heard about the jamie housman until recently, do you think he knows the gear ratios of the 928 and has optimized it for our cars. NOPE, if you really wanted to change things in the gear box, you would look at your HP and target speeds in a 1/4 mile and then pick a rear end ring and pinion that matched that target speed. depending on those two factors, some percentage of the 3.09 change would be sensible. but, takeing a 928 gear box and making a ring and pinion change of 71%, only shifts the gear set up or down. spacing doesnt change, nor do any of the gear ratios after the new "sub-1st " gear.
anyway, ive put some effort into this thread. I hope its appreciated by others.
take the information , believe it, dont believe it, buy the 3.09 if you want.
BUT, you should understand exactly how it will help. 0-39mph for more acceleratoin, and then it carries this gain to 80mph, and thats it. acceleration rates after 80mph to 115mph are actually faster in a stock 2.2. want proof, test yourself, do the math or measure it on the track.
see you at the track
MK
anyway, remember, HUGE companies like KN still stay that clean air filters give better gas mileage!! does this mean its right?? Ive never seen or heard about the jamie housman until recently, do you think he knows the gear ratios of the 928 and has optimized it for our cars. NOPE, if you really wanted to change things in the gear box, you would look at your HP and target speeds in a 1/4 mile and then pick a rear end ring and pinion that matched that target speed. depending on those two factors, some percentage of the 3.09 change would be sensible. but, takeing a 928 gear box and making a ring and pinion change of 71%, only shifts the gear set up or down. spacing doesnt change, nor do any of the gear ratios after the new "sub-1st " gear.
anyway, ive put some effort into this thread. I hope its appreciated by others.
take the information , believe it, dont believe it, buy the 3.09 if you want.
BUT, you should understand exactly how it will help. 0-39mph for more acceleratoin, and then it carries this gain to 80mph, and thats it. acceleration rates after 80mph to 115mph are actually faster in a stock 2.2. want proof, test yourself, do the math or measure it on the track.
see you at the track
MK
Originally Posted by 6.0-928S
Believe what Kibort says through his calculations, or talk to people who ACTUALLY HAVE THE REAL ANSWERS. The ones who own the cars with these gears installed.
Do you think that Jamie Houseman Auto Sport made these gears because he was bored? He was asked to make them. Long before I came along. That's what he does for a living. He makes performance gearsets.
I would like to see everyone on this list who has the 3.09 set to voice their opinion. Come on guys, speak your piece.
Thanks, Hammer
Do you think that Jamie Houseman Auto Sport made these gears because he was bored? He was asked to make them. Long before I came along. That's what he does for a living. He makes performance gearsets.
I would like to see everyone on this list who has the 3.09 set to voice their opinion. Come on guys, speak your piece.
Thanks, Hammer
11-17-2005, 12:17 AM
#397
Rennlist Member
yes it will as far as the first paragraph. BUT, what is that second paragraph???????? Glen, you should know better. a 3.09 doesnt produce more force at any single operating condition EXCEPT, 0-39mph.
we have already proved all the reduction gears that mulitpy torque at any speed after 39mph to be close to the same. this is because the subsequent ratios after 39mph are the same. (meaning the gear ratios are the same except 1st)
If i read what i think you are saying in that last paragraph, you are saying gear number for gear number the 3.09 has a faster rate of acceleration. but we already agreed this misleading to look at , just as looking at the fastest rate of acceleration is max torque in any gear. the fastest rate of acceleraton will be at max hp in a lower gear for a car. (besides 1st gear)
you are really trying to confuse the team here , arent you ? " more force from any single operating condition" what the heck does this mean!!!!???? I thought you said you were an engineer. this is jibberish! why dont you define "operational condition " for me. is that speed, up hill, in the rain, in space, into a head wind, what??? "any gear and rpm point" ?what is this too????? are we talking ratios, or actual gear part number ratios, number designators, etc etc.
you are a funny guy!
MK
we have already proved all the reduction gears that mulitpy torque at any speed after 39mph to be close to the same. this is because the subsequent ratios after 39mph are the same. (meaning the gear ratios are the same except 1st)
If i read what i think you are saying in that last paragraph, you are saying gear number for gear number the 3.09 has a faster rate of acceleration. but we already agreed this misleading to look at , just as looking at the fastest rate of acceleration is max torque in any gear. the fastest rate of acceleraton will be at max hp in a lower gear for a car. (besides 1st gear)
you are really trying to confuse the team here , arent you ? " more force from any single operating condition" what the heck does this mean!!!!???? I thought you said you were an engineer. this is jibberish! why dont you define "operational condition " for me. is that speed, up hill, in the rain, in space, into a head wind, what??? "any gear and rpm point" ?what is this too????? are we talking ratios, or actual gear part number ratios, number designators, etc etc.
you are a funny guy!
MK
Originally Posted by GlenL
Really depends on what you've got and what you're looking for. You can integrate power and back-calculate velocity from the total kinetic energy or compute force on the road and integrate the resultant acceleration. The answer will be the same!
And that's where the 3.09 comes in is that it produces more force from any single operating condition. No every vehicle speed, but any gear&rpm point.
And that's where the 3.09 comes in is that it produces more force from any single operating condition. No every vehicle speed, but any gear&rpm point.
11-17-2005, 12:38 AM
#398
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by mark kibort
you are a funny guy!
You comments reflect the overall confusion of this thread: engine RPM is not vehicle speed.
11-17-2005, 01:28 AM
#399
Rennlist Member
Thats right. never said it was.
I said "torque through the gears at any vehicle speed is HP!! saves several math steps!" so you can look at only the hp at any speed range and it will equal the comparitive torque to the wheels. ( i.e. total accelerative forces to the wheels at any given vehicle speed)
why this is interesting to some, is for example, you can look at our 3.09 vs 2.2 example and look at the hp at the starting speed and the ending speed of any speed range, say 0-39mph and compare hp put to the wheels. (if you know the hp curve on a dyno sheet and your gear ratio set)
the math step it saves when comparing is with hp, you then dont need to multipy the torque x the gear ratio to get a value at the starting rpms and the ending rpms of each shift.
so the net net, 3.09 buys acceleraton from 0-39mph and thats about it!
Mk
PS, was this the paragraph you were refering to: "we have already proved all the reduction gears that mulitpy torque at any speed after 39mph to be close to the same. this is because the subsequent ratios after 39mph are the same. (meaning the gear ratios are the same except 1st)"
If so, re-read it. im not saying to multiply torque BY any speed, i was refering to the gear reductions that multipy torque AT any speed, will be close to the same after 39mph. (ie meaning the gear ratios are the same after 39mph)
I think thats what you were referring too! right? if so, say your sorry!
you know i would never confuse engine speed with vehicle speed! (at least not intentionally!)
I said "torque through the gears at any vehicle speed is HP!! saves several math steps!" so you can look at only the hp at any speed range and it will equal the comparitive torque to the wheels. ( i.e. total accelerative forces to the wheels at any given vehicle speed)
why this is interesting to some, is for example, you can look at our 3.09 vs 2.2 example and look at the hp at the starting speed and the ending speed of any speed range, say 0-39mph and compare hp put to the wheels. (if you know the hp curve on a dyno sheet and your gear ratio set)
the math step it saves when comparing is with hp, you then dont need to multipy the torque x the gear ratio to get a value at the starting rpms and the ending rpms of each shift.
so the net net, 3.09 buys acceleraton from 0-39mph and thats about it!
Mk
PS, was this the paragraph you were refering to: "we have already proved all the reduction gears that mulitpy torque at any speed after 39mph to be close to the same. this is because the subsequent ratios after 39mph are the same. (meaning the gear ratios are the same except 1st)"
If so, re-read it. im not saying to multiply torque BY any speed, i was refering to the gear reductions that multipy torque AT any speed, will be close to the same after 39mph. (ie meaning the gear ratios are the same after 39mph)
I think thats what you were referring too! right? if so, say your sorry!
you know i would never confuse engine speed with vehicle speed! (at least not intentionally!)
Originally Posted by GlenL
Thanks, Mark. You're a funny guy, too.
You comments reflect the overall confusion of this thread: engine RPM is not vehicle speed.
You comments reflect the overall confusion of this thread: engine RPM is not vehicle speed.
11-17-2005, 11:07 AM
#400
Nordschleife Master
Mark,
What I was reffering to was that you were gettng into vehicle speed ("any single operating condition EXCEPT, 0-39mph.") when my comment identified an operating point as "No every vehicle speed, but any gear&rpm point." Missed a "t" there and meant to type "Not every vehicle speed..."
I'm thinking of starting a thread for 2.72 drive ratio people. Or people who have ridden in one. If so, I expect Randy to police it for purity of content. Had a witty post pruned off the 3.09 one. That's an infrigement on my Internet Freedom of Speech to post whatever, wherever as whomever!
Hey! This is post #400 in the thread. Possibly enough? What say you!
What I was reffering to was that you were gettng into vehicle speed ("any single operating condition EXCEPT, 0-39mph.") when my comment identified an operating point as "No every vehicle speed, but any gear&rpm point." Missed a "t" there and meant to type "Not every vehicle speed..."
I'm thinking of starting a thread for 2.72 drive ratio people. Or people who have ridden in one. If so, I expect Randy to police it for purity of content. Had a witty post pruned off the 3.09 one. That's an infrigement on my Internet Freedom of Speech to post whatever, wherever as whomever!
Hey! This is post #400 in the thread. Possibly enough? What say you!
11-17-2005, 01:04 PM
#401
Rennlist Member
Ok, i have a proposition. I dont know why i didnt think of this earlier (but i actualy mentioned it a while ago)
Lets find that drag calculator, and plug in 0-115mph with a 3.09 vs a 2.2 S4 transmission. plug in 300hp and let it fly.
Will you conciede if the out put, which obviously is regardless of grip and driver input, comes out to verify the information and comparisons I have provided?
the only think i have said here, through the 400posts of discussion, is that the 3.09 is faster to 39mph, (faster rate of acceleration) after that, actually it starts to loose ground to the 2.2 with a lead at 80mph, and from that point looses ground to 115mph where it would equal out.
meaning . S4 with 3.09 vs 2.2 gives advantage of the 3.09 as far as acceleration rate to 39mph, ONLY. after that, its pretty matched, with an advantage of the 2.2 unil 115mph from 80mph.
The advantage of the 3.09 to 39mph in the (sub-1st gear of 12.5:1) is about 25% or 60hp for about 2 seconds. the disadvantage of the 3.09 from 80mph to 115mph is about 6% or 15hp for about 6 seconds. the net net is realtively no change in a quarter mile. lets see by pluggin it in the "Drag Calculator" Then, if folks still want to buy a 3.09, they know the facts, rather than the seat of the pants reports. Im sure someday , there will be a 2.2 vs 3.09 race with similar hp S4s. bet its quite a race!
anyone know where that calculator is . if i remember, wasnt it Vinhue (sp?) that posted it???
BY the way, private message me the "witty" post regarding 3.09. and "Not every gear and rpm point"? what does this mean. 2nd gear vs 2nd gear (actual named gears, regardless of ratio?) vs rpm?
MK
Mark
Lets find that drag calculator, and plug in 0-115mph with a 3.09 vs a 2.2 S4 transmission. plug in 300hp and let it fly.
Will you conciede if the out put, which obviously is regardless of grip and driver input, comes out to verify the information and comparisons I have provided?
the only think i have said here, through the 400posts of discussion, is that the 3.09 is faster to 39mph, (faster rate of acceleration) after that, actually it starts to loose ground to the 2.2 with a lead at 80mph, and from that point looses ground to 115mph where it would equal out.
meaning . S4 with 3.09 vs 2.2 gives advantage of the 3.09 as far as acceleration rate to 39mph, ONLY. after that, its pretty matched, with an advantage of the 2.2 unil 115mph from 80mph.
The advantage of the 3.09 to 39mph in the (sub-1st gear of 12.5:1) is about 25% or 60hp for about 2 seconds. the disadvantage of the 3.09 from 80mph to 115mph is about 6% or 15hp for about 6 seconds. the net net is realtively no change in a quarter mile. lets see by pluggin it in the "Drag Calculator" Then, if folks still want to buy a 3.09, they know the facts, rather than the seat of the pants reports. Im sure someday , there will be a 2.2 vs 3.09 race with similar hp S4s. bet its quite a race!
anyone know where that calculator is . if i remember, wasnt it Vinhue (sp?) that posted it???
BY the way, private message me the "witty" post regarding 3.09. and "Not every gear and rpm point"? what does this mean. 2nd gear vs 2nd gear (actual named gears, regardless of ratio?) vs rpm?
MK
Mark
Originally Posted by GlenL
Mark,
What I was reffering to was that you were gettng into vehicle speed ("any single operating condition EXCEPT, 0-39mph.") when my comment identified an operating point as "No every vehicle speed, but any gear&rpm point." Missed a "t" there and meant to type "Not every vehicle speed..."
I'm thinking of starting a thread for 2.72 drive ratio people. Or people who have ridden in one. If so, I expect Randy to police it for purity of content. Had a witty post pruned off the 3.09 one. That's an infrigement on my Internet Freedom of Speech to post whatever, wherever as whomever!
Hey! This is post #400 in the thread. Possibly enough? What say you!
What I was reffering to was that you were gettng into vehicle speed ("any single operating condition EXCEPT, 0-39mph.") when my comment identified an operating point as "No every vehicle speed, but any gear&rpm point." Missed a "t" there and meant to type "Not every vehicle speed..."
I'm thinking of starting a thread for 2.72 drive ratio people. Or people who have ridden in one. If so, I expect Randy to police it for purity of content. Had a witty post pruned off the 3.09 one. That's an infrigement on my Internet Freedom of Speech to post whatever, wherever as whomever!
Hey! This is post #400 in the thread. Possibly enough? What say you!
11-17-2005, 01:20 PM
#402
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by mark kibort
what does this mean. 2nd gear vs 2nd gear (actual named gears, regardless of ratio?) vs rpm?
Wit sometimes needs context. That was one case.
I think I mentioned this before, but I'm working on a pretty cool bench racer xls. It'll illustrate everything we've been talking about in this thread. Just need more time away from work.
11-17-2005, 01:35 PM
#403
Rennlist Member
well, you know that is really the draw of the 3.09. to put your car in 2nd and have it really have a ratio of the previous 1st gear. But, thats where most of the confusion comes from! (agreed?) when you race in a drag, you use the gears you have in sequence, if you have 4 gears to 115mph using, 12.5, 8.3 and 5.9 and 4.5:1 and the other car has 8.9 5.9 and 4.24:1. it doesnt really matter what they are called , it matters what they are! (and you know this!)
let me send you that excel spread sheet for the gears vs speed. its really easy to use and plots all the speeds in any gear with any gear combination
MK
let me send you that excel spread sheet for the gears vs speed. its really easy to use and plots all the speeds in any gear with any gear combination
MK
Originally Posted by GlenL
Yes. Ignore the overall ratio, ignore vehicle speed. Just look at, say, 2nd vs. 2nd @ 6K, or any other such combination.
Wit sometimes needs context. That was one case.
I think I mentioned this before, but I'm working on a pretty cool bench racer xls. It'll illustrate everything we've been talking about in this thread. Just need more time away from work.
Wit sometimes needs context. That was one case.
I think I mentioned this before, but I'm working on a pretty cool bench racer xls. It'll illustrate everything we've been talking about in this thread. Just need more time away from work.
11-17-2005, 02:46 PM
#405
Rennlist Member
http://www.nightrider.com/biketech/accel_sim.htm
Ok here is the net net of the situation by the computer.
Hey folks, made a HUGE mistake with my response to MSniper, when i thought i was pulling out the big gun with the differerences after 80mph. Folks, i had the ratio percentages mixed up after 80mph the 4.24 is for the stock s4 with 2.2 in 3rd. this we all know. but the 4.5 is LOWER !!! duh!!!!! by 6% giving the 3.09 4.5 :1 ratio from 80mph an advantage (i was giving the advantage to the S4 2.2 which was wrong) .
However, this doesnt change the FACT that up until 80mph, the 3.09 has a slight lead based on the gains out of the hole. 26% more hp /torque to 39mph. this is true. A little loss til 55mph, a little gain until 60mph and then dead even acceleration rates to 80mph.
Now, the similator is REAL easy to work with. just put in the S4 ratios of 4.04, 2.68 1.92 1.45 and 1:1 and then use 2.2 or 3.09 for your final drive. plug in the torque values based on your torque curve. (or any torque curve) set weight at 3100lbs racing weight, shift points of 6500rpm and off you go.
It proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the 3.09 is only good for 0-39mph and after that acceleration rates or perceived acceleration rates are just that! in a 1/4 mile race, sure, it will win by .2-.5 seconds!! But, get this 0-330 feet is almost tied!!!!, (mph is the same and the 3.09 has a .4 second lead. At 1/8mile, the 2.2 is .4 second off but at the same speed! (MPH) too! at 1/4 mile, the time is .3 seconds off but the actual speed of the 2.2 is ACTUALLY faster 112 vs 110mph. So, you want to get launched out of the hole and win a 1/4mile drag. the 3.09 is for you . if you want faster acceleration at some other points in the speed range 39-115mph, the 2.2 is just fine. Now, there is it. you want to actually go faster in a 1/4 mile, the 2.2 remains the best!! Now, factor in mistakes,or wheel spin and i bet the 2.2 can pull off some wins.
thats the net net, right from the computer and the information ive provided is in automated form here, taking into account all power/time/speed factors
Mk
Ok here is the net net of the situation by the computer.
Hey folks, made a HUGE mistake with my response to MSniper, when i thought i was pulling out the big gun with the differerences after 80mph. Folks, i had the ratio percentages mixed up after 80mph the 4.24 is for the stock s4 with 2.2 in 3rd. this we all know. but the 4.5 is LOWER !!! duh!!!!! by 6% giving the 3.09 4.5 :1 ratio from 80mph an advantage (i was giving the advantage to the S4 2.2 which was wrong) .
However, this doesnt change the FACT that up until 80mph, the 3.09 has a slight lead based on the gains out of the hole. 26% more hp /torque to 39mph. this is true. A little loss til 55mph, a little gain until 60mph and then dead even acceleration rates to 80mph.
Now, the similator is REAL easy to work with. just put in the S4 ratios of 4.04, 2.68 1.92 1.45 and 1:1 and then use 2.2 or 3.09 for your final drive. plug in the torque values based on your torque curve. (or any torque curve) set weight at 3100lbs racing weight, shift points of 6500rpm and off you go.
It proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the 3.09 is only good for 0-39mph and after that acceleration rates or perceived acceleration rates are just that! in a 1/4 mile race, sure, it will win by .2-.5 seconds!! But, get this 0-330 feet is almost tied!!!!, (mph is the same and the 3.09 has a .4 second lead. At 1/8mile, the 2.2 is .4 second off but at the same speed! (MPH) too! at 1/4 mile, the time is .3 seconds off but the actual speed of the 2.2 is ACTUALLY faster 112 vs 110mph. So, you want to get launched out of the hole and win a 1/4mile drag. the 3.09 is for you . if you want faster acceleration at some other points in the speed range 39-115mph, the 2.2 is just fine. Now, there is it. you want to actually go faster in a 1/4 mile, the 2.2 remains the best!! Now, factor in mistakes,or wheel spin and i bet the 2.2 can pull off some wins.
thats the net net, right from the computer and the information ive provided is in automated form here, taking into account all power/time/speed factors
Mk